Dubstepforum.com

wooda916 wrote:hahahaha, i can defo see it! fucking lol at the christians getting offended!

what i want to know is why someone was taking pictures of a dogs bum?!

Hugh wrote:

ChristopherA wrote:that one is such a no-brainer, you would kinda have to be a no-brainer to make ridiculous sweeping statements about religion being responsible for wars

science is contaminated. it is owned by government.

owned. controlled.

if you think otherwise, you need a serious reality check. i recommend reading Cat's Cradle for insight into the nature of scientists with no concept of morality working for people who only want the knowledge to gain more power for themselves.

what's that got to do with what we are discussing now? You can equally say religion is corrupt. Anywho the discussion of corruption within government frameworks is a totally irellevant.
It pisses me off that people even put science in the same box as religion. I remember at school a friend of mine said they may as well dump religious education and start forcing kids to read lord of the rings and believe in that instead.
What i love most about religion is how things like the bible have had their interpretations completely changing just to suit new found scientific explanations for events.
for example, the bible used to claim god made the world in 7 days. Then science proposes the big bang as an alternate explanation, so religion attempts to shoot it down. Then background cosmic radiation is discovered , and when placed alongside evidence such as the universe constantly expanding, it becomes very difficult to contradict, so naturally religion moves to a new argument - "god created the big bang"
this is impossible to disprove because god has been created by man as an invisible entity who choses to watch over us without ever intefering.
i really dont buy it and never will, sorry.

science benefits from revision too. tailored and modified to fit new things, situations, environments. i don't think any of us have been bled or had leeches recently...at least, i haven't.

this topic isn't about corruption. I still can't see your point.

science is responsible for the prescription drug industry too

bagelator wrote:

wooda916 wrote:hahahaha, i can defo see it! fucking lol at the christians getting offended!

what i want to know is why someone was taking pictures of a dogs bum?!

Hugh wrote:this topic isn't about corruption. I still can't see your point.

64. If a fool be associated with a wise man (pandita ) even all his life, he will perceive the truth as little as a spoon perceives the taste of soup.

65. If an intelligent man be associated for one minute only with a wise man, he will soon perceive the truth, as the tongue perceives the taste of soup.

anyway i'm not interested in converting or arguing with science zombies

i'm audi

faith in any dogma handed down from on high is dumb

this

mind you, faith in any dogma handed up from the underground is dumb as well

bellybelle wrote:

Hugh wrote:

ChristopherA wrote:that one is such a no-brainer, you would kinda have to be a no-brainer to make ridiculous sweeping statements about religion being responsible for wars

science is contaminated. it is owned by government.

owned. controlled.

if you think otherwise, you need a serious reality check. i recommend reading Cat's Cradle for insight into the nature of scientists with no concept of morality working for people who only want the knowledge to gain more power for themselves.

what's that got to do with what we are discussing now? You can equally say religion is corrupt. Anywho the discussion of corruption within government frameworks is a totally irellevant.
It pisses me off that people even put science in the same box as religion. I remember at school a friend of mine said they may as well dump religious education and start forcing kids to read lord of the rings and believe in that instead.
What i love most about religion is how things like the bible have had their interpretations completely changing just to suit new found scientific explanations for events.
for example, the bible used to claim god made the world in 7 days. Then science proposes the big bang as an alternate explanation, so religion attempts to shoot it down. Then background cosmic radiation is discovered , and when placed alongside evidence such as the universe constantly expanding, it becomes very difficult to contradict, so naturally religion moves to a new argument - "god created the big bang"
this is impossible to disprove because god has been created by man as an invisible entity who choses to watch over us without ever intefering.
i really dont buy it and never will, sorry.

science benefits from revision too. tailored and modified to fit new things, situations, environments. i don't think any of us have been bled or had leeches recently...at least, i haven't.

yes but the difference is these are all numbers that are being refined... not imaginary stories. For example when Planck's constant was first discovered it was rather innacurate, but it was still correct. All that has changed is the number is far more accurate, and when we are saying accuare im talking down to the millionths in value. These are visible, interactable, real things that we can prove and see in every day life. They are then preached as the truth simply because that is what they are!!!
Also i'm glad you are having to resort to biological sciences as a route for your argument, because it well known in the science world that biology is very hit and miss. This is simply because everyone and everything is slightly chemically different, and this of course goes down to genetics. However, with genetics being a relatively infantile science compared to physics, it's gonna be making a few errors - but then none of this is preached as truth - and it certainly doesnt stand in the middle of town shouting a fucking megaphone at you about how its going to save you.

A picture of a dog's ass spawning religious debate.
Internet, what?

Hugh wrote:yes but the difference is these are all numbers that are being refined... not imaginary stories. For example when Planck's constant was first discovered it was rather innacurate, but it was still correct. All that has changed is the number is far more accurate, and when we are saying accuare im talking down to the millionths in value. These are visible, interactable, real things that we can prove and see in every day life. They are then preached as the truth simply because that is what they are!!!
Also i'm glad you are having to resort to biological sciences as a route for your argument, because it well known in the science world that biology is very hit and miss. This is simply because everyone and everything is slightly chemically different, and this of course goes down to genetics. However, with genetics being a relatively infantile science compared to physics, it's gonna be making a few errors - but then none of this is preached as truth - and it certainly doesnt stand in the middle of town shouting a fucking megaphone at you about how its going to save you.

No. Instead, it insults your level of intelligence and dismisses you as being ignorant. Which is completely different from the "I'm right. You're wrong. Here's why," dismissal. 100%.

Then again, Science and Religion don't do that at all, do they? No....only those who elect themselves as spokespeople do.

I believe in Direct experience!

me too. i'm an empiricist. a non-committal one at that.

No. Instead, it insults your level of intelligence and dismisses you as being ignorant. Which is completely different from the "I'm right. You're wrong. Here's why," dismissal. 100%.

lol how on earth does it do that? I can never think of anyone who has ever been "insulted by science". And so what if it dismisses other opinions once it's own opinion has been proven, and this is a key word here.
That's like having video evidence of a murder then throwing it away and choosing to believe instead the victim died of natural causes.
I don't understand why people are like this... it seems to be born out of fear of some kind of crazy government conspiracies/personal issues out of being told what to do and who to believe.
Obviously everyone has to have their own opinion and independance, but once the evidence is there i'm sold, And i'm not a stupid person, i'm not gonna instantly believe anything until it has been explained mathematically. And of course you always have to be aware where the source of information comes from.
But if come up to you and drop an anvil on your head and knock you out and explain gravity is the cause of the acceleration of the anvil into your head, and you then turn back round and say "well it could've been something else", i'm going to have to think you are a bit of a retard.

Hugh wrote:

No. Instead, it insults your level of intelligence and dismisses you as being ignorant. Which is completely different from the "I'm right. You're wrong. Here's why," dismissal. 100%.

lol how on earth does it do that? I can never think of anyone who has ever been "insulted by science". And so what if it dismisses other opinions once it's own opinion has been proven, and this is a key word here.
That's like having video evidence of a murder then throwing it away and choosing to believe instead the victim died of natural causes.
I don't understand why people are like this... it seems to be born out of fear of some kind of crazy government conspiracies/personal issues out of being told what to do and who to believe.
Obviously everyone has to have their own opinion and independance, but once the evidence is there i'm sold, And i'm not a stupid person, i'm not gonna instantly believe anything until it has been explained mathematically. And of course you always have to be aware where the source of information comes from.
But if come up to you and drop an anvil on your head and knock you out and explain gravity is the cause of the acceleration of the anvil into your head, and you then turn back round and say "well it could've been something else", i'm going to have to think you are a bit of a
retard.

an equally glib dismissal. why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Since when did it become the mission of science to disprove religion? Why are you acting as if to believe in God and have a faith, you're all of a sudden handling snakes, grinding up tiger penis, and refusing a necessary blood transfusion? And THATS exactly what I'm saying.

Scientists use trite examples to demonstrate their domination over religion. If you want to thoroughly convince me of its superiority, give me concrete mathematical proof for the reason of the existence of life. Explain to me our purpose. Our reason for being here. Tell me. Give me data and statistics. You can't because you don't have it. And as long as Science or Religion can't satisfy me, I'll be damned if I'm bullied by either.

I benefit from both as do many people who live here. A priest and an astrophysicist cannot berate me into believing their side. My will is too strong to be dominated by either. I allow for both because I do not believe one cancels out the other. And if the believers in both extremes could just take the time out of what they need to be true to just allow for the existence of the other, a lot more could be done to benefit the communities at large. Instead, they dispute and discredit, blame each other for problems that are human ailments than anything either concept actually is. And make deaf enemies who don't give a shit about either. But at least someone is right, correct? At least thats whats important.

Dude, dog ass.

this threads weird man. and so are the comments.

bellybelle wrote: Explain to me our purpose. Our reason for being here. Tell me. Give me data and statistics. You can't because you don't have it. And as long as Science or Religion can't satisfy me, I'll be damned if I'm bullied by either.

there is no meaning of life, you are an occurunce of your parents having sex. im afraid you, nor me or anyone else is at all special or indistiguishable from anyone/thing else in the grand scheme of things.
we are all a collection of atoms and molecules.
dubstep is the only supernatural force...

edit: im sorry if that sounds condisending, its not intended to be...

wooda916 wrote:

bellybelle wrote: Explain to me our purpose. Our reason for being here. Tell me. Give me data and statistics. You can't because you don't have it. And as long as Science or Religion can't satisfy me, I'll be damned if I'm bullied by either.

there is no meaning of life, you are an occurunce of your parents having sex. im afraid you, nor me or anyone else is at all special or indistiguishable from anyone/thing else in the grand scheme of things.
we are all a collection of atoms and molecules.
dubstep is the only supernatural force...

edit: im sorry if that sounds condisending, its not intended to be...

Guys, it's a dog's ass, all of y'all shut up.

bellybelle wrote: an equally glib dismissal. why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Since when did it become the mission of science to disprove religion? Why are you acting as if to believe in God and have a faith, you're all of a sudden handling snakes, grinding up tiger penis, and refusing a necessary blood transfusion? And THATS exactly what I'm saying.

Scientists use trite examples to demonstrate their domination over religion. If you want to thoroughly convince me of its superiority, give me concrete mathematical proof for the reason of the existence of life. Explain to me our purpose. Our reason for being here. Tell me. Give me data and statistics. You can't because you don't have it. And as long as Science or Religion can't satisfy me, I'll be damned if I'm bullied by either.

I benefit from both as do many people who live here. A priest and an astrophysicist cannot berate me into believing their side. My will is too strong to be dominated by either. I allow for both because I do not believe one cancels out the other. And if the believers in both extremes could just take the time out of what they need to be true to just allow for the existence of the other, a lot more could be done to benefit the communities at large. Instead, they dispute and discredit, blame each other for problems that are human ailments than anything either concept actually is. And make deaf enemies who don't give a shit about either. But at least someone is right, correct? At least thats whats important.

I never said once that believing in religion makes you a bad person. I believe spreading it to other people who lack education on the subject on the other hand is a very bad thing. This is PURELY because there is nothing to base it on! It's complete trivia!
I'm trying to make some valid points and all you are throwing back at me is "well i'm going to believe what i want cos it's my opinion", this isn't a case at all! Please give some explanation as to why you feel the way you do lol.